By Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU at 1:15pm
In 2008, Congress enacted a statute that authorized the National Security Agency to carry out dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications. Almost four years later, the statute — called the FISA Amendments Act — has yet to be reviewed by the courts, and, if the Obama administration has its way, the courts are unlikely ever to review it. In February, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn a court of appeals decision that would allow an ACLU challenge to the statute to go forward. Today we filed our brief in opposition, which asks the Supreme Court to let the appeals court's decision stand.
In a very significant development, yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that our lawsuit challenging warrantless wiretapping can proceed. The law that we’re challenging, the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008, is the most far-reaching surveillance law ever enacted by Congress. It gives the National Security Agency (NSA) virtually limitless power to spy on Americans' international phone calls and emails. It allows the NSA to collect those communications en masse, without a warrant, without suspicion of any kind, and with only very limited judicial oversight. Needless to say, the law has dramatic implications for Americans' privacy rights.
By Barbara Flynn Currie, Illinois House of Representatives, Majority Leader at 2:08pm
As we near the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we can expect to see a number of retrospective pieces in print and broadcast offering commentary on changes to America in the decade since that shocking day.
By Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU at 1:55pm
As I noted in a previous post, the two Bush administration surveillance memos we obtained last Friday are very heavily redacted. They’re interesting nonetheless.
The first memo, written by Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo in November 2001, contends that the president has authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a statute that “purports” (Yoo’s word) to regulate government surveillance. It also contends that Congress doesn’t have the power to regulate the president’s authority to gather intelligence for national security purposes. And it contends that intelligence gathering in support of military operations “does not trigger constitutional rights against illegal searches and seizures.” These are radical and insupportable claims, but they’re consistent with the claims that Yoo made in other OLC memos.
When Congress enacted and the President signed into law the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, some of the nation's largest telecommunications companies were given an extraordinary gift: full-scale immunity from the pending lawsuits brought by their customers, who had alleged that their privacy and other rights were violated by the telecoms' participation in the Bush administration's illegal spying program. There are, however, several reasons for believing that this telecom immunity provision is unconstitutional, violative of several different constitutional guarantees.
Okay so you may know that we sued the government last week (you know it never really gets old, suing the government) when President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act into law. This was not a "compromise bill" or a "modernization" bill, which is how they tried to sell it. Instead Congress basically handed the President even more power to spy on Americans than he was using under the illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Super, right?
Immediately after he signs, we're suing. Our argument is simple: This bill is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. You know, the one that says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It’s been a long day so here’s a quick highlight reel from the last few hours:
Senator Specter introduced his immunity amendment.
Senator Whitehouse spoke against immunity and described the whole situation as the Bush Administration’s “self-inflicted wound.” Nice.
Senator Levin spoke in favor of the Bingaman amendment, too. Makes me proud to be from Michigan.
Senator Chambliss read his speech (for the bill, not shockingly) as quickly and as free from emotion as possible. It was like he was presenting a book report.
Seriously, if one more senator talks about the need for immunity for future cooperation, I’m going to throw my computer out the window. For the 582nd time, FISA requires that telecommunications be legally compelled to hand over information if the proper legal requirements are met. Remember Feingold’s speech this morning?
